Another hospital calls CPS on parents who question routine medical procedures

[Cajuncowboy]

And one thing that is not debateable is that if we go to the type of Unviersal Health Care that is currently planned, the quality of care will for sure go down.
Not a political statement, just indisputable fact.

Hopefully they can find a balance that helps those who can't afford proper care but still allows for easily accessible high-end care if some wish to pay for it.

It is amazing how many die each year from stuff that occurred at the hospital. Sadly, that will only get much worse if we go down the projected path set.

I can't find the dang "Like" button!

 

[JBond]

Hopefully they can find a balance that helps those who can't afford proper care but still allows for easily accessible high-end care if some wish to pay for it.

It is amazing how many die each year from stuff that occurred at the hospital. Sadly, that will only get much worse if we go down the projected path set.

We had a system. Those of us that pay our bills recognize that part of that bill is inflated to cover those that cannot pay or refuse to pay for themselves. The skyrocketing cost are a result of two main factors. The first is the damn lawyers like John Edwards that made all their money as ambulance chasers suing doctors. The second is when the government began institutionalizing and giving away healthcare.

Just like the cost of education has skyrocketed as a result of government intervention so has medical care. It will only get worse and worse until we are all equally poor and none of us can afford care.

 

[notherbob]

And one thing that is not debateable is that if we go to the type of Unviersal Health Care that is currently planned, the quality of care will for sure go down.
Not a political statement, just indisputable fact.

Hopefully they can find a balance that helps those who can't afford proper care but still allows for easily accessible high-end care if some wish to pay for it.

It is amazing how many die each year from stuff that occurred at the hospital. Sadly, that will only get much worse if we go down the projected path set.

I think this may have been what was on the mind of the baby's father when he didn't want the injection and may also have been a part of the earlier decision to have the baby at home to decrease the chances of either mother or child coming down with MRSA. According to stats, hospital-acquired staph infections (HA-MRSA) are more resistant to more drugs than community-acquired staph infections simply because of all the different antibiotics in use at hospitals. In my discussions with MRSA patients, I have seen a more than a few cases of HA-MRSA among newborns and their mothers. It is truly sad.

As the former Chief of Staff, surely he was aware of that hospital's record in that area and that may have been part of his motivation. Just a guess.

 

[vta]

As the former Chief of Staff, surely he was aware of that hospital's record in that area and that may have been part of his motivation. Just a guess.

It's amazing how easily this fact is disregarded in favor of just calling the guy a quack.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You'd think that but there are people who think others know what's best for kid than you do. They have a very natcicistic view of the establishment whatever that establishment may be.

I think you mean narcissistic.

In any event, in many cases, the doctors/hospitals do know more about babies than parents do, especially first time parents or those just trying to argue about their "rights".

What sane person tries to take a child from the hospital after 12 hours?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I think you mean narcissistic.

In any event, in many cases, the doctors/hospitals do know more about babies than parents do, especially first time parents or those just trying to argue about their "rights".

What sane person tries to take a child from the hospital after 12 hours?

Well the "t" is close to the "r".

And that sane person would be a physician AND the former chief of staff at the hospital.

Maybe reading the whole article would help you some.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Well the "t" is close to the "r".

And that sane person would be a physician AND the former chief of staff at the hospital.

Maybe reading the whole article would help you some.

He's defending himself here.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

This is the most stupid thing i have heard. You have every right in the world to refuse treatment if you bring yourself to the hospital. And of there is no life threatening issue with your child, you have every right to take that child to another care facility that you choose. But to say you must stay there and let them do whatever THEY say they want to do is utterly ridiculous.

You should have been done with this thread before you posted your first "Duty of Care" post. because you and hoof look nutty.

Well put.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Well the "t" is close to the "r".

And that sane person would be a physician AND the former chief of staff at the hospital.

Maybe reading the whole article would help you some.

Physicial heal thyself. He was not being rational.

If the hospital was so bad, why did he allow his wife to give birth at it?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Hmm...We are agreeing far to often lately. Maybe I need to rethink my position.

Yeah... on the things you disagree with me on.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

So what is the word on your lawsuit Cowboy?

Immunity road blocks could lie ahead, but it isn't over yet. I'm fighting.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Physicial heal thyself. He was not being rational.

If the hospital was so bad, why did he allow his wife to give birth at it?

Proof that I am on the right side of this is that you are on the other side. Your opposition gives my argument even more validity. I swear, this is too funny.

If you think you have to walk in lock step with everything a doctor, any doctor says, you are stark staring nuts.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Immunity road blocks could lie ahead, but it isn't over yet. I'm fighting.

Immunity for the doctor, CPS or the nurses?

I know up here you cannot sue a social worker for what she does in the course of her job unless she acts with malice or is grossly negligent.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Immunity for the doctor, CPS or the nurses?

I know up here you cannot sue a social worker for what she does in the course of her job unless she acts with malice or is grossly negligent.

Here the laws usually favor those who were ran by someone in a state vehicle, stuff like that. But a cop can make a case, albeit weak, as to why he accidentally shot your relative. I'm finding the same things here when I look at rulings. Then, the cap to be sued is 250k. One guy was injured in a car wreck by the state. He's a quadrapalegic as a result. That amount doesn't even begin to holding them accountable for what they really owe him.

It's for money, but it isn't about the money. I'd like a different ruling. But the courts aren't interested in being held accountable, especially when they're involved as being a party that's held accountable. It has been a tough battle so far.

 

[Hoofbite]

No, I do. I just don't agree with it. Somehow you seem to think that because one doctor says something and another doctor says something else, the one acting as the doctor is automatically right and then to hell with the parents rights.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find that statement coming from me.

Parents rights were observed. They didn't give the shot, did they? They didn't prevent them from checking out did they?

What you seem to miss is the doctor and hospital staff have the right to do what they believe is necessary in order to prevent liability issues down the road which has been my argument from the beginning.

Also, since the the father was Chief of staff and a long career as a physician, seems like he would have not only his child's best interest at heart but also might have a better understanding on the medical necessity of one treatment over another.

If you are going to try to use an argument of who knows best, a consensus of treatment being the standard buries the opinions of any single doctor

Further, it really wasn't, no matter how you try to spin it, any endangerment of the child. And once again, since you can't seem to get this through your head, this was over something that was so insignificant like a bath and administration of a vitamin. Never was there any danger to the child and the hospital knew that.

You don't know if there was possible danger or not. You aren't a doctor nor are you aware of the differences between oral and injection routes of the vitamin.

You know next to nothing on the topic.

I'm curious Hoof. Do you have kids?

Nope.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find that statement coming from me.

Parents rights were observed. They didn't give the shot, did they? They didn't prevent them from checking out did they?

What you seem to miss is the doctor and hospital staff have the right to do what they believe is necessary in order to prevent liability issues down the road which has been my argument from the beginning.



If you are going to try to use an argument of who knows best, a consensus of treatment being the standard buries the opinions of any single doctor



You don't know if there was possible danger or not. You aren't a doctor nor are you aware of the differences between oral and injection routes of the vitamin.

You know next to nothing on the topic.



Nope.

That explains a lot then on this subject. And I don't have to know anything about the shot vs. the oral ingestion other that there are alternatives and the parents have a right to make that choice. Not the doctor. And considering the father WAS a doctor, I think there is some deference that needs to be afforded to him.

I do know the baby was in no danger because there was nothing wrong with him and CPS said as much.

 

[Hoofbite]

That explains a lot then on this subject. And I don't have to know anything about the shot vs. the oral ingestion other that there are alternatives and the parents have a right to make that choice. Not the doctor. And considering the father WAS a doctor, I think there is some deference that needs to be afforded to him.

I do know the baby was in no danger because there was nothing wrong with him and CPS said as much.

Oh, sure it explains a lot. Being a parent is basically the only area in which you can make a valid argument (one that is weak in this regard because it has nothing to do with the main issue) because you have no experience in the actual field and are unwilling to acknowledge the liability issues.

But you apparently don't know the definition of the word "possible".

Also needs to be taken in the context of opinion.

Seeing how the actual doctor would have been responsible for a negative outcome, protecting their license shouldn't come as some shock.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh, sure it explains a lot. Being a parent is basically the only area in which you can make a valid argument (one that is weak in this regard because it has nothing to do with the main issue) because you have no experience in the actual field and are unwilling to acknowledge the liability issues.

But you apparently don't know the definition of the word "possible".

Also needs to be taken in the context of opinion.

Seeing how the actual doctor would have been responsible for a negative outcome, protecting their license shouldn't come as some shock.

You don't seem to get it. No danger. The doctor knew it, or if he didn't, he shouldn't be a doctor. There was no danger of a suit, nor was there a threat of a suit. People sign themselves out of hospitals ALL THE TIME and you do not have to accept any treatment you don't want. And as the parent you have that same jurisdiction over your child.

This isn't a case of the baby being ill and in a life threatening position and the parents said no to a treatment.

As for the word "possible" there was no possible danger of the child not taking the shot or getting the bath when the parent said he should have it. So your whole argument has zero merit. None at all.

This is looks like a case of the doctor wanting to throw his weight around and maybe get back at his former boss. Don't know that for sure but the reason you gave is totally absurd.

 

[Hoofbite]

You don't seem to get it. No danger. The doctor knew it, or if he didn't, he shouldn't be a doctor. There was no danger of a suit, nor was there a threat of a suit. People sign themselves out of hospitals ALL THE TIME and you do not have to accept any treatment you don't want. And as the parent you have that same jurisdiction over your child.

This isn't a case of the baby being ill and in a life threatening position and the parents said no to a treatment.

As for the word "possible" there was no possible danger of the child not taking the shot or getting the bath when the parent said he should have it. So your whole argument has zero merit. None at all.

This is looks like a case of the doctor wanting to throw his weight around and maybe get back at his former boss. Don't know that for sure but the reason you gave is totally absurd.

Do you know why vitamin k is administered after birth?

And as I have stated, the parent had every right in the world to take their course of action but the doctor had an equal right to take theirs.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Do you know why vitamin k is administered after birth?

And as I have stated, the parent had every right in the world to take their course of action but the doctor had an equal right to take theirs.

Yeah, it has something to do with the blood clotting correctly or something. That's neither here nor there.

The hospital had no right to do this because they knew the baby was in no danger. They just caused a problem for no reason. And on top of that, they were proven wrong. Once the parent checked the baby out of the hospital, the case was noted and that was it. There was no chance of a law suit.